Allahabad High Court
Smt Seema Devi And Another vs State Of U.P. Through Secretry Ministry ... on 2 July, 2024
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106526 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 481 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt Seema Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretry Ministry Of Revenue Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the state respondents.
3. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'DDC') affirming the order dated 6.10.2023 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'SOC') in appeal filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 assailing the order dated 10.1.2023 passed by Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'CO') in objection under Section 20 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'UPCH Act').
4. Facts culled out from the record are that the instant writ petition is arising out of chak allotment proceedings. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are mother and son, likewise respondent nos. 4 and 5 are also mother and son as well. During the provisional consolidation scheme, petitioner no. 1 has been proposed chak nos. 329 at two places first at plot no. 185/4 and second consists of plot nos. 292 and 294 total measuring area 0.140 hectares. Petitioner no. 2 has been proposed chak no. 305 at three places first at plot no. 185/4, second at plot no. 326/2 and third consists of plot no. 292, 293 and 294 totalling area 0.123 hectares. Likewise, Radhe Shyam (responded no.4) has been proposed chak no. 196 at two places first at plot number 185/2 M. etc. and second chak at plot no. 350 M. etc. However, Smt. Somari Devi (responded no.5) has been proposed chak number 338 at two places first chak consists of plot number 185/2 M. etc. and second chak at plot no. 353 M.
5. Having dissatisfied with the location/positioning of their chaks and pathways, four objections were filed under section 20 of UPCH Act. Petitioner no. 1 (Seema Devi) filed an objection to modify the positioning of her chak over plot no. 185 and prayed to make it adjoining chak of his son and father-in-law. Second objection was filed by Sandhya Devi wife of Bhagwati claiming approach road to his house over plot no. 185. Third objection was filed by Somari Devi (responded no.5) claiming carvation of chak over plot nos.351, 352 and 353 in place of plot no. 292. Fourth objection was filed by Radhe Shyam (responded no. 4) claiming carvation of chak over plot no. 352 and 353 in place of 292 and 354. Consolidation Officer, vide common order dated 10.01.2023, has decided all the four objections proposing minor changes in positioning of chak of the present petitioners and contesting respondents over plot number 185. Having aggrieved with the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the CO two separate appeals were preferred by respondent nos.4 and 5 claiming the positioning of chak at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer and prayed to carve out a chak road towards eastern side of plot No. 185 from north to south in place of eastern side of plot No. 184. The SOC, vide order dated 6.10.2023, has partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents only with respect to the positioning of chak over plot no. 185. However, dismissed the appeal with respect to change for placement the chak road. The DDC, on two revisions being filed by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 separately, has dismissed both the revisions affirming the order passed by the SOC, which is under challenge before this court.
6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel and perusal of record, it is manifested that CO has simply changed the positioning of chak of present petitioners and private respondents over the plot nos. 185/4 and 185/2 according to their previous possession over there. While reversing the judgment passed by the CO , the SOC has scrutinized the record, land map as well as spot inspection report submitted by Consolidator and returned a categorical finding that chak of both parties have not been carved out by CO in accordance with their previous possession. Having considered the spot inspection report, learned SOC has observed that over the area where the appellants are in possession, the chaks of the opposite parties have been carved out, and, likewise, over the area where the opposite parties are in possession, the chaks of the appellants have been carved out, thus, this situation is unsustainable and improper as per the possession of the parties. Therefore, pointing out the previous possession of the parties over the plot in question, the SOC has simply modified the order passed by the Consolidation Officer to the extent of repositioning the chak of the parties over plot No. 185/2 and 185/4. The spot inspection conducted by the consolidator became final between the parties, inasmuch as there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any written objection has been filed against the said report questioning the possesson of parties as averred in said report. Having regard to the spot inspection and the observations made by the SOC, the DDC. has rightly affirmed the order passed by SOC.
7. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition and interfere in the order passed by the SOC as well as DDC. There is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order impugned so as to warrant the indulgence of this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing on the record to demonstrate as to how the petitioners are prejudiced, or if there is any likelihood of causing a miscarriage of justice to them, owing to the order impugned. In the chak allotment proceedings it is difficult to carve out the chaks on the wishes of the chak holders. Nothing has been pointed out as to how provisional consolidation scheme as enunciated under section 19 of UPCH Act has been validated in passing the order under challenge.
8. Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no orders as to the costs.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024/vkg